[Pulp-dev] issue #3360 follow up

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Fri Feb 23 19:25:18 UTC 2018

After meeting with @dkliban and @jortel to discuss #3360, we came up with
an alternative proposal that has some small tweaks. Basically, all three
parameters (add_content, remove_content, and base_version) could be used
together and the parameter for the repository version would be called
‘base_version’. I think the parameter name of base_version make sense
because it aligns with the code and since we’re allowing all three
parameters to be used in conjunction, the repo version is a sort of base
that you build on by adding/removing content.

Would like to get people’s thoughts on this alternate proposal.


On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm concerned that having a single endpoint with a complicated combination
> of parameters that control how the endpoint behaves isn't ideal.
> Especially since some of the parameters are mutually exclusive.  Seems that
> having /api/v3/repositories/<id>/versions/ endpoint do one thing is
> cleaner.  Should we go with the approach of simpler endpoints, I would
> suggest something like  /api/v3/repositories/<id>/versions/clone/ that
> accepts parameter "version" in the body that is an href to an existing
> version.  If we go with a single complex endpoint, I'd suggest
> "cone_version" as the parameter.
> As an aside, the existing add_content_units and remove_content_units
> should be renamed.  "_content" is already plural so adding the "_units" is
> the singular form that's made plural.  Should just be add_content,
> remote_content.
> On 02/16/2018 03:30 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> Earlier today several of us discussed issue 3360[0]. In our discussion we
> concluded that it is valuable for users to be able to create exact copies
> of repository versions within a repository and across different
> repositories. I have updated the issue to reflect what we discussed. We
> decided that this use case should be included in the MVP.
> The issue currently states that the parameter will be called
> 'mirror_repository_version'. However, we could not agree if that is
> actually the best name for this parameter. Suggestions for a better name
> are welcome on this thread or as comments on the issue.
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3360
> -Dennis
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180223/a8cc5e93/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list